Sime Darby Property (Bukit Jelutong) Sdn Bhd 1. ) NITT SDN BHD 2. ) Susilawati Binti Ahmad

Sime Darby Property (Bukit Jelutong) Sdn Bhd 1. ) NITT SDN BHD 2. ) Susilawati Binti Ahmad

The Court affirmed the High Court's factual findings that defects (both air‑conditioning and other defects) were proven and caused by the developer's breach of materials and workmanship obligations; the purchasers proved forgery of DRFs/FFs sufficient to exclude them; Regulation 11(1B) cannot be used to contract out of statutory protections so as to deprive purchasers of the statutory obligations; latent defects remain claimable after DLP; expert evidence adduced by purchasers sufficed to establish rectification quantum. Consequently all six appeals were dismissed and the High Court judgment affirmed.

Citation
B-02(C)(W)-595-04/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Sime Darby Property Berhad; Appellant: Sime Darby Property (Bukit Jelutong) Sdn Bhd; Respondent (purchaser): Ooi Cheng Huat @ Ooi Peng Huat; Respondent (purchaser): Bryan Patrick Ooi Sze-Yuen; Respondent (purchaser): Shawn Philip Ooi Sze-Yew; Respondent (purchaser): Spiral Pristine Sdn Bhd; Respondent (purchaser): Shaiful Hamidi bin Basirdin; Respondent (purchaser): Rosli bin Musa; Respondent (purchaser): Nitt Sdn Bhd; Respondent (purchaser): Susilawati binti Ahmad; Respondent (purchaser): Albert Chai Min Chung; Respondent (purchaser): Adele Leong Boon Yen
Court
C
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
30 January 2026
Case Number
B-02(C)(W)-595-04/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (housing Development Defects) / Court of Appeal – Grounds of Judgment (judgment Delivered)
Outcome
All six appeals dismissed; High Court judgment dated 30.03.2023 affirmed in full.
Legal Topics
Sale and Purchase Agreement Interpretation, Defect Liability Period (dlp), Latent Vs Patent Defects, Expert Evidence and Fresh Evidence on Appeal, Forgery of Defect Rectification Forms, Regulation 11(1 B) HDLR / Contracting Out of Statutory Form, Assessment of Damages (rectification Costs), Strike Out of Cross Appeals
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Construction Law Housing Development Regulation Evidence Law Appellate Procedure Sale and Purchase Agreement Interpretation Defect Liability Period (dlp) Latent Vs Patent Defects +5 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 27
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sime Darby Property Berhad

Appellant

Sime Darby Property (Bukit Jelutong) Sdn Bhd

Appellant

Ooi Cheng Huat @ Ooi Peng Huat

Respondent (purchaser)

Bryan Patrick Ooi Sze-Yuen

Respondent (purchaser)

Shawn Philip Ooi Sze-Yew

Respondent (purchaser)

Spiral Pristine Sdn Bhd

Respondent (purchaser)

Shaiful Hamidi bin Basirdin

Respondent (purchaser)

Rosli bin Musa

Respondent (purchaser)

Nitt Sdn Bhd

Respondent (purchaser)

Susilawati binti Ahmad

Respondent (purchaser)

Albert Chai Min Chung

Respondent (purchaser)

Adele Leong Boon Yen

Respondent (purchaser)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (housing Development Defects) / Court of Appeal – Grounds of Judgment (judgment Delivered)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether purchasers proved defects and developer liability for breach of materials and workmanship obligations
  2. 2 Whether signatures on Defect Rectification Forms and Feedback Forms were forged and inadmissible as proof of rectification
  3. 3 Whether developer validly contracted out of statutory Schedule I under Regulation 11(1B) HDLR

Ratio Decidendi

The Court affirmed the High Court's factual findings that defects (both air‑conditioning and other defects) were proven and caused by the developer's breach of materials and workmanship obligations; the purchasers proved forgery of DRFs/FFs sufficient to exclude them; Regulation 11(1B) cannot be used to contract out of statutory protections so as to deprive purchasers of the statutory obligations; latent defects remain claimable after DLP; expert evidence adduced by purchasers sufficed to establish rectification quantum. Consequently all six appeals were dismissed and the High Court judgment affirmed.

Court Disposition

All six appeals dismissed; High Court judgment dated 30.03.2023 affirmed in full.

Orders

  • Appellant to pay costs of MYR 30,000.00 to each Respondent in each appeal, subject to allocatur
  • Cross-appeals (Enclosures 50,19,19,21,22,23) struck out; costs MYR 10,000.00 for each striking out motion, subject to allocatur